On the 18th of February, Thomas J. Geary, a Member from California, reported to the House of Representatives, from the committee on foreign affairs, a bill to absolutely prohibit the coming of Chinese persons into the United States. On the 4th of April he moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill. After a debate of one hour, and without amendment, this drastic bill passed. It came to the Senate and was referred to the committee on foreign relations, On the 13th of April it was reported to the Senate with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was the bill that had previously passed the Senate.

On the 21st of April I made a full statement of the action of the committee and the scope of the amendment proposed by it. I had no sympathy with the outcry against the Chinese, but was quite willing to restrict their migration here to the extent proposed by the committee. On the 25th of April the amendment was agreed to after full debate, by the strong vote of yeas 43 and nays 14. In this form the bill passed. The House disagreed to the Senate amendment and a committee of conference was appointed, consisting of Dolph, Sherman and Morgan on the part of the Senate, and Geary, Chipman and Hall on the part of the House. This committee recommended the adoption of the House bill with certain amendments. The report was signed by Dolph and Morgan on the part of the Senate, and Geary and Chipman on the part of the House. I stated my dissent from the conference report, as follows:

"Though a member of the conference committee, I was not able to get the consent of my own judgment to sign this report. I simply wish to state very briefly the reasons why I did not do it.

"I was very willing to provide for any legislation necessary to continue in force the existing restrictions against Chinese laborers coming to this country. The Senate bill did this, I thought, very broadly. It continued in force the old laws. It provided some penal sections to punish Chinamen coming into the country in opposition to the law, especially through Canada. I look upon the introduction of Chinese laborers through Canada as not only an insult to our country, but it seems to me an almost designed insult by the Canadian authorities to allow a class of people who are forbidden by our laws to come here, to enter a port right on our border. They are charged $50 for the privilege of landing on Canadian soil with the privilege to enter our country in violation of our laws. It is not courteous treatment by the Canadian authorities, and it is incidents like this which tend to create excitement all along the border, and which some time or other will no doubt be the cause of great difficulty, because unfriendly legislation of that kind, constantly repeated, must tend to create irritation.

"The objection I have to this measure is in the addition that has been made to the Senate bill, which provides for a certificate to be taken out by every Chinaman lawfully in this country, here under virtue of our treaty and by our laws; that they must apply to the collector of internal revenue of their respective districts, within one year after the passage of this act, for a certificate of residence, and severe penalties are provided for neglect or refusal to do so. This inaugurates in our system of government a new departure, one I believe never before practiced, although it was suggested in conference that some such rules had been adopted in the old slavery times to secure the peaceful and quiet condition of society. It is suggested that we act daily upon the same rule in regard to the Indian tribes on reservations, but that is upon very different ground. The Indians are in our country, they are confined to reservations, and treaties have been made, and those treaties require them to stay on their reservations. So we are simply enforcing the treaties, and the Indians do not have to get a certificate or be punished.

"Now, whether this exceptional legislation, never before introduced into our country, except in the possible cases I have mentioned, is in violation of the treaty, is the real question and the real doubt upon which I stand. I care nothing about the exclusion of Chinese laborers from our country, because I believe their habits are inconsistent with our civilization, and, as soon as we can get rid of them properly, according to the treaty, I am willing to do so. The question is now whether, in the fact of the language of the treaty of 1880, it is our right—not our power, but our right according to the treaty—to make this exceptional legislation for people who are now here under existing law. The treaty provides that the United States may, whenever in its opinion the coming or residence of Chinese laborers injuriously affects the interests of this country, 'regulate, limit or suspend such coming or residence, but may not absolutely prohibit it.' In violation of that article of the treaty we expressly provide that these people shall only have the right to remain here upon applying, on certain terms and conditions, for a certificate; that if they lose their certificate they are not to be governed by the laws as to other persons; they are here ticket-of-leave men. Precisely as under Australian law a convict is allowed to go at large upon a ticket-of-leave, these people are allowed to go at large and earn their livelihood, but they must have this ticket-of-leave in their possession. We have agreed by this treaty not only that we would not discriminate against them in our legislation, but that we would permit these laborers to remain in the position of persons 'of the most favored nation.' . . . Here is a treaty by which China, the most populous nation in the world, agreed that the United States may exclude the class of people of China that we do not want here, making a discrimination against them among all nations of the world. But it is done upon certain terms and conditions, that in respect to those who are here now they shall be treated as all other peoples are treated; that no discrimination shall be made against them; that no prejudicial mark shall be put upon them. By the terms of this bill I think the treaty is violated, and I, for one, do not propose to vote for the conference report on that ground."

After a lengthy debate in the Senate the report of the conference committee was agreed to, and the bill became a law.

An interesting debate occurred during this session in respect to the effect of the tariff laws upon wages and prices. No tariff bill was then pending, but a sub-committee of the committee on finance had been engaged for the past year in investigating this subject, and had accumulated a mass of testimony in regard to it. Senator Eugene Hale, on the 27th of June, offered the following resolution, which gave rise to the debate:

"Whereas, At no time has so large a proportion of the American people been employed at so high wages, and purchasing the necessities and comforts of life at so low prices, as in the year 1892; and

"Whereas, The balance of the trade with foreign countries has never been so large in favor of the United States as in the last year; and

"Whereas, Those conditions exist and are largely due to the Republican policy of 'protection:' Therefore,

"Resolved, That the committee on finance be, and is hereby, directed to inquire into the effect of a policy of 'tariff for revenue only' upon the labor and the industries of the United States, and to report upon the same to the Senate."

The next day Mr. Hale made a brief speech upon the resolution, and was followed by Senator Vest, who quoted many documents, which were printed in the "Record," in support of his views. Several other Senators participated in the debate which continued from day to day.

The full report of the committee referred to, embracing three volumes of over six hundred pages each, was submitted to the Senate on the 19th of July, and on the 29th Senator John G. Carlisle, who, as a member of the committee, had taken much interest in the inquiry, and had participated in the conversational debate during the preceding month, made an elaborate speech upon the resolution and mainly upon the proposition advanced by him, that the result of the McKinley law was to increase the prices of commodities, while it did not increase wages. His speech was certainly a good specimen of logic by a well trained mind. His first proposition was that it was the unanimous opinion of scientists and statisticians, in all the great industrial and commercial countries of the world, that the prices of commodities had been decreasing, and the rates of wages, especially in those occupations requiring skill and intelligence, had been increasing; that capital had been receiving, year after year, a smaller percentage of the total proceeds of the product, and labor a larger percentage. He insisted that the tendency toward a decline in prices of commodities and an increase in the rates of wages is the necessary result of our improved methods of production, transportation and exchange. He said that anyone who contends in this day that high prices of commodities are beneficial to the community at large, is at war with the spirit of the age in which he lives, and with the genius of discovery and invention, which, during the last half century, has ameliorated the condition of mankind by bringing all the necessaries of life, and many of its luxuries, within the reach of every man who is willing to work. He then entered into an elaborate argument to show that the McKinley act interfered with this natural tendency towards a decline in the prices of commodities and a rise in the rates of wages, and made it harder and more expensive for the masses of the people of the United States to live.

I do not follow his argument, as, to treat him fairly, it would be necessary to state it in full. It was illustrated by carefully prepared tables.

On the same day, without preparation, I said I would not undertake to reply to the precise and fair argument made by the Senator from Kentucky, but took exception to the basis of his argument, that the cheapness of things is the great object of desire. I did not think so, though the report of the committee did not bear out his argument as to the effect of the McKinley law, but, on the contrary, showed that prices had declined and wages increased since its enactment. When cheapness comes by discoveries, by inventions, or by new industrial processes, the people ought to share in those benefits, but as a rule mere cheapness of things is not a benefit to the people of the United States, especially when they are the productions of the people of the United States. When the wheat of a farmer is worth only fifty cents a bushel or his cotton only seven cents a pound it is to him a calamity, not an object of desire but a misfortune. I proceeded at some length to answer the points made by Mr. Carlisle as I recalled them. I insisted that the magnitude of domestic production and the opportunities to labor were matters of greater importance than the prices of commodities. If our needs can be supplied by American labor it is a mutual advantage to both the laborer and producer. The larger the product of American labor the greater is the wealth and comfort of American citizens. If American labor is actively employed there can be no difficulty in the laborer obtaining the necessaries of life. I quoted the opinions of the Presidents of the United States, including Jefferson, Madison, Monroe and Jackson, as the friends and supporters of the doctrine of the present Republican party on the subject of protection. Mr. Jefferson, especially, announced, as among the first and vital principles of his party, the protection of American industries, the diversity of employment and the building up of manufactures. Andrew Jackson repeatedly made the same declaration. The platform upon which he was elected was "That an adequate protection to American industry is indispensable to the prosperity of this country; and that an abandonment of the policy at this period would be attended with consequences ruinous to the best interest of the nation."

I insisted that the object of protection—the employment of American labor—was of more importance than the price of food or clothing, though I believed, with Mr. Carlisle, that the tendency of a constant falling of the prices of the necessaries of life would go on without regard to the duties on imported goods, as the natural result of invention and skill.

My speech of an hour or two was frequently interrupted, but it contains the substance of opinions I have always entertained in respect to protective duties. My object has always been to seek to advance the interests of American workingmen in all kinds of industries, whether mechanical, agricultural, scientific or otherwise. Whether the cost of the necessities are increased or diminished by this policy is a matter of comparative indifference, so that the people are employed at fair wages in making or producing all the articles that can be profitably produced in the United States. The gist of my opinions on the policy of protection is contained in the following paragraphs of this speech:

"Whenever tariff duties are levied at a higher rate than sufficient to compensate our laboring men in the different rates of wages they are fairly entitled to receive, then I am against the tariff act. I have never favored any tariff that, in my judgment, did not furnish sufficient and ample protection to American labor. As to American capital, it needs no protection. The capital of our country has grown so fast, so large, so great, that it does not need protection. We are able to engage in any kind of manufacturing industry. We are able, so far as the capital of our country is concerned, to compete with foreign production. The rates of interest on money in this country have fallen very nearly, though not quite, to the European rates. Therefore, capital needs no protection. It ought to demand no protection, but it ought to demand, and it ought to receive, in every branch of American industry which can be carried on here with profit, that degree of protection which will enable the manufacturer to pay to the American laborer American wages, according to American standards, to satisfy the wants which are required by the average American citizen, and that is all that is desired."

Having referred to the principal measures of Congress during the long session of 1891-92, I recur to some of the personal events that followed my re-election. It was received with general approval by the press of the United States. On the evening of the 30th of January, 1892, the Ohio Republican Association, at Washington, extended to me a reception at the National Rifles' Armory. Several hundred invitations had been issued, and very few declined. The hall was beautifully decorated with flags, and in the gallery the Marine Band was stationed and rendered patriotic airs. I was introduced to the audience by Thomas B. Coulter, the president of the association. He deplored the illness of Secretary Charles Foster, who was to have delivered the address of welcome, and then introduced S. A. Whitfield, who made a complimentary address, closing as follows:

"You have gone through all these years of public life without a stain upon your honored name. The recent election in Ohio demonstrated the honor in which you are held by the people of your state. It was that which has given us this opportunity to pay you this respect, we, of the Ohio Association, who are here to welcome you."

To this I made a brief reply, expressing my hearty thanks. John Wanamaker, Postmaster General, made an interesting address, full of humor and kindness, and was followed by several Members of Congress, among whom was my neighbor, Michael D. Harter.

The only incident of an unpleasant nature growing out of the senatorial contest was an unfounded charge against H. M. Daugherty, an active and able member of the house of representatives of Ohio, who was accused by a newspaper with being corruptly influenced to cast his vote for me. He promptly denounced the slander, and demanded an investigation. Noticing the publication and his denial, I wrote him as follows:

"Senate Chamber, } "Washington, January 18, 1892.} "Hon. H. M. Daugherty.

"My Dear Sir:—I notice in Saturday's 'Journal' that you intend to push to a trial some of the men who most unjustly libeled you, and indirectly libeled me. I think so clear and strong a case of gross injustice ought to be punished if the law can furnish any relief, and I sympathize with you, and will stand by you in the effort to reach the guilty parties.

"No one can know better than I the frank, manly and disinterested course you pursued in the contest for the organization of the house, and the election of Senator, and no one can know better than I how false the imputation made against you was.

"I am glad to say that in the whole contest I never used one dollar of money to corrupt or influence the vote or judgment of any member of the legislature, and that the charge that you received, or were to receive, $3,500, or any other sum of money, is absolutely false and malicious. Whenever you desire me to testify to this, I will gladly do so.

"Very sincerely yours, "John Sherman."

A committee was appointed by the general assembly, who examined witnesses, and, after reciting the evidence, reported as follows:

"We are unable to find one iota of evidence that would lead us to believe that the said H. M. Daugherty either received, or asked, or was offered, any consideration for his vote for John Sherman, for United States Senator, or that anyone received, or asked, or was offered, the same for him, or that he was in any way unduly or corruptly influenced to cast his vote for the said John Sherman, but that, in voting for the said John Sherman, Mr. Daugherty followed the instructions received by him from his constituents. We herewith submit all the evidence taken by us in this examination, and make the same a part of this report.

"Respectfully submitted, "A. H. Strock, "J. C. Heinlein, "W. A. Reiter, "John D. Beaird."

The "State Journal" said:

"After the report was read and adopted members crowded around Mr. Daugherty and congratulated him. These expressions of good will were too much for Mr. Daugherty's composure, and tears came unbidden to his eyes. He felt the stigma placed upon his good name by the insinuations of the Democratic newspapers very keenly, although not one member of the house believed the stories."

At this period many interviews with me were published. It is the custom of newspaper letter writers, who are generally bright intelligent men, to call upon a Senator or Member with some current story of the hour and then interview him. A brief interview is often expanded into a long article in a newspaper, founded sometimes not upon the conversation but upon speeches, writings and known opinions of the person interviewed. When this is fairly and truly done it answers the purpose of the letter writer, and the person interviewed has no cause of complaint. This was especially the case with the letters of George Alfred Townsend. His letter of February 26, 1892, was but one of many which entered into details that I could not deny, embracing anecdotes and incidents hardly worthy of preservation, but forming a part of the gossip of the hour. The newspaper reporter, as distinguished from the letter writer, does not seek as a rule to verify his views, but flashes by telegraph the current report of the moment. In this way it was stated in the New York "World," on the 29th of February, that I was about to resign and that Foster was to take my place, that I was to edit General Sherman's letters, and ample details were given of arrangements for the future—not a word of which was true.

In the latter part of February, I received a letter from the Citizens' Republican Association of Cincinnati, of which Lewis Voigt was president, the occasion of which is stated in my reply. I knew, from my observation in the summer and fall previous, that a single man held and controlled the Republican nominations in Hamilton county and that he, in effect, had cast ten votes in the Ohio house of representatives—one refusing to obey instructions— and three votes in the senate on the election of a United States Senator, when I knew and they knew that the people of that county were divided in opinion between Foraker and myself, but they had committed themselves to their "boss" to vote for Senator as he should direct, in order to secure his "influence" in the primaries. I knew that if I answered the letter of the association truly I would be reproached by the timid with the cry "Hush," "Hush," but I felt it was my duty to answer and I did, as follows:

"Washington, D. C., February 29, 1892. "Messrs. Lewis Voigt, Chairman; Evan Evans, Secretary, and others:

"Gentlemen:—Your note of the 22nd inst. is received. You state that you were appointed by a Republican meeting, held at the Lincoln club, that had 'for its object' the overthrow of a gang in Hamilton county who have seized and degraded the 'Republican organization.' You inclose the circular of your executive committee to the Republicans of Hamilton county, proposing an organization of the 'Citizens' Republican Association,' with a view of rebuking corruption and purifying our party 'affairs from offenses and scandalous methods,' and request me to give my opinion of your movement.

"While I do not wish to interfere in any way with the methods adopted by the people of Hamilton county to ascertain the popular will, yet I cannot refuse to answer frankly the inquiry of so respectable a body of Republicans who complain that the popular will is defeated by a corrupt gang, using offensive and scandalous methods. My opinion is founded upon information gathered from many of your citizens and the public press of Cincinnati, as well as from your own statement. If I am in error as to existing methods for the control of nominations and the corrupt practices of political managers, your people can correct me and I will be gladly convinced of my error.

"I do not see how any self-respecting Republican can differ with you in your effort to secure to the Republican voters of Hamilton county the free and unimpeded selection of candidates for office, without the intervention of a boss or the corrupt use of money to purchase the nominations. As I understand, the substantial control of all local Republican appointments, and nominations to public offices or employments of every grade in Hamilton county, is practically in one man, that it is rare that anyone can secure any place on the Republican ticket, from judge of the highest court in your county, to the least important office, without his consent, that this consent is secured in most cases by the payment of a specific sum of money, that the money so collected is apportioned between the 'boss' and what is called the 'gang,' and used to control the primaries for the election of delegates to your county, state and congressional conventions, and that when any office carries with it patronage it is made the express and implied condition in the nomination of the candidate that this patronage must be transferred to the 'boss.'

"I understand also that the appointments made by your local boards, and even some federal offices, are in effect transferred to the same person to whom applicants are sent and whose recommendation decides the appointment, so that one man controls by corrupt methods nearly all nominations and appointments in Hamilton county, and this rule is only tempered by occasional respect to public opinion, when the boss thinks it unsafe to disregard it. These methods were strikingly exemplified in the last county convention, when a decided majority of a delegation of ten representatives and three senators were nominated for the Ohio legislature, pledged beforehand to vote for the person to be designated by the boss when the time came for the election of the Senator of the United States. His decision was carefully withheld until the election was over and was then announced. In this way the vote for United States Senator of the most populous city and county in Ohio was, during the canvass, held, as I believe, for sale, not by the persons nominated as Senators and Representatives, who are highly reputable citizens, but by a corrupt organization which was able to control the nominations and practically to exercise the power to vote for United States Senator intrusted to its nominees.

"Surely such a condition of public affairs in Hamilton county not only justifies, but makes it imperative, that the Republicans of the county should promptly and fearlessly correct these practices. It does not diminish their responsibility that similar methods are adopted by the Democratic party. A reform by Republicans will compel a reform by Democrats, or leave them in a hopeless minority. Public attention has been called by you to these conditions, but the people alone can furnish the remedy; that is, by general attendance of lawful voters at the primaries, and by the election of delegates who will be controlled in their votes by the wishes of their constituents, and not by the dictates of a boss for a slate ticket prepared and arranged by him, as was done in the last county conventions. There is no rule so obnoxious, so easy to break, as boss rule, and there is no rule so enduring, or so wise, as the unbiased choice and action of a popular assemblage. Since I have been in public life, I have not sought to influence nominations and conventions, and do not wish by this letter to do so, except to join in your appeal to the electors of Hamilton county to assert their right to make nominations and hold conventions, a right too sacred to be delegated to anyone, and especially to one who would sell nominations to elective offices. When the innumerable offices, employments, contracts and labor of a great city, and all the public improvements, are made to contribute to a great corruption fund which is used by a single manager, or, as is apt to be the case, by two managers, one of each party, it tends to destroy the power of the people, to promote extravagance, to increase taxes, and finally to produce riots and violence. Whenever such methods appear in municipal governments, it is the duty of good citizens, without respect to party, to depose the boss and enthrone the people.

"Very respectfully yours, "John Sherman."

I have never regretted writing this letter and its broad publication. Whether a reform has been effected in Hamilton county I do not know, but my caution against bossism in politics may be useful.

CHAPTER LXII. SECOND ELECTION OF GROVER CLEVELAND. Opposition to General Harrison for the Presidential Nomination—My Belief That He Could Not Be Elected—Preference for McKinley— Meeting of the National Republican Convention at Minneapolis— Meeting of Republicans at Washington to Ratify the Ticket—Newspaper Comment on My Two Days' Speech in the Senate on the Silver Question —A Claim That I Was Not in Harmony with My Party on the Tariff— My Reply—Opening Speeches for Harrison and Reid—Publication of My "History of the Republican Party"—First Encounter with a "Kodak" —Political Addresses in Philadelphia, New York, Cincinnati, Chicago and Milwaukee—Return to Ohio—Defeat of Harrison.

During the spring and summer of 1892, prior to the renomination of General Harrison for President and Whitelaw Reid for Vice President, the choice of candidates was the general subject of comment. A good deal of opposition to General Harrison was developed, mainly, I think, from his cold and abrupt manners in his intercourse with those who had business with him. His ability and integrity were conceded, but he was not in any sense popular. This was apparent especially in New York, that state that nominated him in 1888. During all the period mentioned many names were canvassed, mine among others, but I uniformly declined to be a candidate, and said if I had a vote in the convention it would be cast for Harrison. Some of his friends, especially Charles Foster, complained in published interviews that I had not taken a more active part in securing his nomination. From later developments I became satisfied that Harrison could not be elected, that Platt and a powerful New York influence would defeat him if nominated. I therefore preferred the nomination of a new man, such as William McKinley, but he had committed himself to Harrison, and, according to my code of honor, could not accept a nomination if tendered him.

The Republican national convention met at Minneapolis on the 7th of June. On the first ballot, Harrison received 535 votes, Blaine 182, McKinley 182, Reed 4, Lincoln 1. The southern states gave Harrison 229 votes and other candidates 69, thus securing to Harrison the nomination. Both Blaine and McKinley promptly acquiesced in the result. I did not think the nomination wise, but was reported, no doubt correctly, as saying to an interviewer:

"The nomination is one I expected to be made in the natural order of things. The attempt to bring out a dark horse against two persons evenly matched, or supposed to be so, is an extremely difficult feat, because any break from one of the leaders would naturally carry a portion of his followers to the other leader. Therefore, the nomination of Harrison seemed to be the natural sequence as soon as it appeared that he had a majority over Blaine, which, I think, was apparent from the very beginning. I think that the nomination being made, all will acquiesce in it and try to elect the ticket. There was far more discontent with the nomination four years ago than there is now. Then there were rapid changes made that were to be accounted for only by agreements and compacts made among leading delegates, but that was impossible in this case because the convention was divided between prominent candidates. I think the Republicans in every state will cheerfully acquiesce in the result, and hope and expect that we can elect the ticket."

Soon after the nominations were made, Ohio Republicans in Washington, held a ratification meeting. Alphonso Hart acted as president of the meeting. He said it was not a matter of surprise that there had been a difference of opinion as to candidates at Minneapolis, when the choice was to be made between Harrison, Blaine, McKinley, Reed and Lincoln. To-day their followers were all Harrison men. I entered the hall as he was closing and was loudly called upon for a speech. I said I had come to hear the young Republicans, McKinley and Foster. I congratulated my hearers upon the bright prospect of Republican success, and declared that Harrison would be elected because he ought to be. The following synopsis of what I said was published in the papers:

"President Harrison was all right. Personally, perhaps, he (the Senator) would have been in favor of McKinley, but there was time enough ahead for him; the future would witness his exaltation. He eulogized McKinley most eloquently and declared him to be one of the greatest and best men in public life. It was the best thing to nominate Benjamin Harrison and the next thing to do would be to elect him. It made no difference whom the Democrats trotted out against him, he could and would win.

"The Senator said he was getting old now and did not feel like working as he once did. He wanted to take things easy and let the young men exert themselves. 'Let me,' he said, 'play the part of Nestor and talk to you in a garrulous sort of a way; give you good advice, which you do not always heed. Let me wander around like the old farmer and watch the young men toil, but if I can mend an old spoke or repair a broken wheel call upon John Sherman—he will do his best.'"

On the 1st of July I started from Baltimore, by boat, for Boston, for the recreation and air of a short sea voyage. I arrived on the 3rd, and met, as usual, a reporter who asked many questions, among others as to the condition of the silver bill and whether Harrison would approve it if it should pass. I answered, I believed Harrison would veto it, and also believed that if Cleveland was in the chair he would do the same.

Pending this presidential nomination, my mind was fully occupied by my duties in the Senate. I made my two days' speech on the silver question, already referred to, when the active politicians were absorbed in what was to happen in the convention at Minneapolis. I quote what was said in papers of different politics, not only as their estimates of the speech, but also of the state of my mind when it was made:

"The two days' speech of Senator Sherman on the Stewart silver bill is undoubtedly the greatest speech he has ever made. More than that, it is probably the greatest speech that ever was made in the Senate on any financial question. It is interesting to note that Mr. Sherman, after speaking two hours and a half on Tuesday, said that he was not at all tired, and was ready to go on and finish then. This was said in reply to a suggestion that the Senate should adjourn. For one who has passed his sixty-ninth year, this is surely a remarkable exhibition of mental and physical powers.

"Such a speech, covering not only the silver question, but the whole range of national finance, cannot be reviewed in detail within the limits of a newspaper article. All that can be said about details is that Mr. Sherman has not merely a well furnished mind on the whole range of topics embraced in his discourse, but so well furnished that there is no point too small to have escaped his attention or his memory.

"Give him a clear field, such as the statesmen and financiers of Europe have, where there are no wrongheaded and befooled constituencies to be reckoned with, and he would be facile princeps among them." —New York "Evening Post," June 2, 1892.

"In his latest great speech on free coinage, Senator Sherman, after depicting the inevitable disaster which the silver standard would bring upon the United States—drawing an impressive lesson from the experience of countries having a depreciated silver currency— deals with the subject of bimetallism in his usual lucid way. He has been called a 'gold bug,' and is no doubt willing to accept the epithet if it signifies a belief in the gold standard under present conditions. But he declares himself to be a bimetallist in the true sense of the term.

"What the Senator means by bimetallism is the use of gold and silver and paper money maintained at par with each other; more definitely, the different forms of money of different temporary values must be combined together by the law in some way to make them circulate as equal with each other. This is accomplished now by our laws and the pledge of the government to keep all forms of money at a parity with that form having the greatest intrinsic value. Whether, under the law requiring the purchase of 54,000,000 ounces of silver a year, silver and gold could permanently be maintained at the same value as money, at the existing ratio of sixteen to one, is a matter concerning which the Senator expresses doubt. He would repeal or materially amend the law of 1890. Furthermore, he would change the ratio. The increased production of silver and the consequent decline in price warrant this course, and it is a financial and business necessity if silver is to enter more largely into circulation or into use as the basis of paper."—Cincinnati "Times Star," June 4, 1892.

"In a conspicuous degree Senator Sherman, of Ohio, represents the noblest principles and traditions of the Republican party. He is an astute politician; but, much better than that, he is a wise, public-spirited, broad-minded statesman.

"With regard to the financial and economic principles, which are vital ones, and which must be made the dominating ones of the Republican campaign, Mr. Sherman's opinions and convictions are known to be in harmony with those of shrewdest judgment and wisest, safest counsel. Mr. Sherman is the strongest, most effective defender of the principle of honest money now in public life, and a consistent supporter of the policy of protection.

"Within the last few days Mr. Sherman, in one of the most masterly and cogent arguments ever made in the Senate, has indisputably proved the length, depth and breadth of his perception of true, just, safe financial principles and his unconquerable loyalty to them. At a time when the enemies of an honest, stable currency are seeking to destroy it and to set up in its place a debased, unstable, dishonest currency, the country would accept this exponent of sound, wise finance and a reliable, steadfast currency with extraordinary satisfaction."—Philadelphia "Ledger and Transcript," June 8, 1892.

"While Senator John Sherman's mail is loaded down with letters from all parts of the country in reference to the presidency, while a thousand suggestions reach him from all quarters that after all he is not unlikely to be the man upon whom the Minneapolis nomination will light, and while the mass of people are listening with feverish interest for news from the convention, Sherman calmly rises in his place in the Senate and delivers a five hours' speech upon the coinage and the currency, which will not only rank as perhaps the greatest effort of his own life, but will constitute a text-book upon the subject for half a dozen generations to come.

"Men will not read the speech this week; but the unusual circumstances under which it was delivered and the curious spectacle of a great mind discussing so abstract a subject amid the fervid heat and excitement attending a national convention of his own party, will make everybody look up the speech after the convention is over and give it more readers, perhaps, than any speech upon the coinage and the currency ever had since the foundation of the government." —"Ohio State Journal," June 9, 1892.

Soon after the adjournment of Congress, on the 5th of August, I returned to Mansfield. At this time the Boston "Herald" alleged that I was not in harmony with my party on the tariff. This was founded upon an erroneous construction of my reply to Carlisle. The article was called to my attention by W. C. Harding, of Boston, to whom, in reply, I sent the following letter on August 29:

"Your note of the 27th is received. In answer I have to say that the Boston 'Herald' in the article you inclose, has totally misconstrued my position on the tariff. I am decidedly in favor of a protective tariff; one framed with a view not only to secure ample revenue for the support of the government, but with a distinct purpose to encourage and protect all productions which can be readily produced in our country. I do not believe that a tariff framed under the doctrine now announced and proclaimed by the Democratic party in its national platform can protect and foster our home industries.

"Mr. Tilden, and the men of his school, believed that the old doctrines of the Democratic party, proclaimed in former national platforms and supported by the declarations of Jefferson, Madison and Jackson, was a wise and constitutional exercise of national power. This doctrine has been abandoned and denounced by the Democratic platform recently adopted by the Chicago convention. A tariff framed in accordance with this new doctrine would be confined simply to levying revenue duties, excluding the idea of protection, and that is the purpose and object of the men who made the platform, and of the men in the Democratic convention that adopted it by a large majority.

"Such a tariff might be levied exclusively on articles we cannot produce in this country, such as sugar, coffee and tea. I have believed that as to certain items in different tariffs we have gone beyond the line of protection which is necessary to foster American industries. A few rates have been adopted that I think will exclude competition between foreign and American productions and secure a monopoly to the American manufacturer. This I do not believe to be a wise policy. There are some details of the McKinley tariff bill that may be subject to this objection, but on the whole it is the fairest and best tariff, not only for revenue, for the protection, that has had a place on our statute book. The tariff plank of the Republican convention at Minneapolis is the clearest statement of the extent of protection favored by the great mass of the Republicans of this country.

"The actual result of the McKinley bill has been not only to give to all American industries reasonable protection, but has increased our foreign trade, enlarged our exports and our imports, and greatly encouraged and added to all kinds of American productions, whether of the field or of the workshop. I fear the Boston 'Herald' has overlooked the striking difference between the old position of the Democratic party and the one now proclaimed by that party. The tendency and drift of the Democratic party is now more and more in favor of free trade, and in open opposition to any favor shown by discriminating duties to foster, encourage and diversify American industries."

I attended the state fair at Columbus early in September and met the leading Republicans of the state. I noticed an apparent apathy among them. The issue between the parties was for or against the McKinley tariff. The parties did not differ materially on the silver question, but did differ as between national and state banks. The Democratic party had resolved in favor of the repeal of the tax on state bank circulation, but it was believed that Cleveland would repudiate or evade this dogma. There seemed to be no enthusiasm on either side, but there was less dissatisfaction with the existing administration than is usual during the incumbency of a President. The country was prosperous. The people had confidence in Harrison and the general drift seemed to be in his favor.

In September I wrote an article for the New York "Independent" on "The History of the Republican Party." It was confined chiefly to the contention that the Republican party was an affirmative party, adopting, declaring and executing great public measures of vital importance, while the Democratic party was simply a negative party, opposing all the Republican party's measures but acquiescing in its achievements. I insert the closing paragraph:

"Republicanism, on the other hand, holds fast to everything that is ennobling and elevating in its history. It is the party of national honor, which has removed the foul reproach of slavery, and redeemed the plighted faith of the government in financial legislation and administration. It is the party of equal rights, an unsullied ballot and honest elections. It is the party of national policies, of comprehensive scope and enlightened self- interest, by which industry is diversified, labor systematically protected, and the prosperity of all classes and sections promoted. Between its present policies and the traditions of its glorious past there is unbroken continuity of patriotic action."

On the 30th of September, I made my first speech in this canvass at North Fairfield. The place, audience, and surroundings gave me a special interest in the meeting. Thirty-eight years before, I, then a young man, spoke at the same place, before a similar audience, as a candidate for Congress, nominated by a party then without a name. Now I was about to address an audience chiefly composed of men and women, the children of my old constituents, who had been born since my first appearance there. It is a farming region, well cultivated, and but little changed in appearance by the lapse of years. The great change was the absence, in the grave, of the leading men I had met on my first visit, but they were represented by descendants so numerous that they had to meet in the open grove instead of the simple meeting-house of the olden time. The comparatively few old settlers present who had attended the former meeting, many of whom had been soldiers in the army, greeted me warmly and reminded me of incidents that then occurred. It was natural, under these circumstances, that my speech should be reminiscent; but, in addition to the history of events, I stated— I think fairly—the issues immediately involved—of tariff, currency and coin. I closed my speech with the following reference to the presidency:

"As to your vote for President I do not believe any Republican has any doubt. It does not follow that because a man is President, or nominated as such, he ought to be lauded to the skies. We have in this republic no gods or demigods. I know General Harrison as well as one man ever knew another after an intimate acquaintance for ten years. He is a man of fine character, so far as I understand, without blemish or reproach. His ability is marked and is now recognized by all parties, I may say, in all parts of the world. He has the lawyer's habit of taking the opposite side of a question, but before he acts he is apt to be on the right side. When in the Senate he did not show the versatility of talent he has exhibited as President. All his utterances have been marked with dignity suited to his high position, yet with delicate appropriateness and precision that will admit no criticism. I have no controversy with Mr. Cleveland. I think he is better than his party. On important and critical questions he has been firmly right. But in the choice between them for the high office to which they aspire no Republican should hesitate to vote for Harrison, and an honest Democrat should, in view of the tendencies of the Democratic party on the questions I have discussed, decide to go and do likewise."

The next meeting of note that I attended was at the Academy of Music in Philadelphia. I do not recall any meeting that I ever addressed within four walls more striking and impressive than this, not only in numbers and intelligence, but in apparent sympathy with the speaker. Of the persons mentioned by me those who received the loudest applause were in their order Blaine, McKinley and Harrison. In opening I said:

"When I was invited to speak to you I was told that this was to be a meeting of business men, to consider business questions involved in a presidential election. I will, therefore, confine myself to business issues distinctly made between the two great political parties of our country. The people of this city of Philadelphia, the greatest manufacturing city on the American continent, are as well, or better, prepared to decide these issues wisely as any other equal number of American citizens. I assume you are not much troubled with third parties. The temperance question will be settled by each individual to suit himself. The only Farmers' Alliance I know of here is the Farmers' club, who dine sumptuously with each other as often as they can and differ with each other on every subject. I assume that you are either Republicans or Democrats, that you are for Benjamin Harrison or Grover Cleveland.

"The questions involved, in which you are deeply interested, are whether duties on imported goods should be levied solely with a view for revenue to support the government, or with a view, not only to raise revenue, but to foster, encourage and protect American industries; whether you are in favor of the use of both gold and silver coins as money, always maintained at parity with each other at a fixed ratio, or of the free coinage of silver, the cheaper money, the direct effect of which is to demonetize gold and reduce the standard of value of your labor, productions and property fully one-third; whether you are in favor of the revival and substitution of state bank paper money in the place of national money now in use in the form of United States notes, treasury notes and certificates, and the notes of national banks.

"These are business questions of vital interest to every wage earner, to every producer and to every property owner, and they are directly involved in the election of a President and a Congress of the United States. Surely they demand the careful consideration of every voter. They are not to be determined by courts or lawyers or statesmen, but by you and men like you, twelve million in number, each having an equal voice and vote."

The body of my speech was confined to the topics stated. I closed with the following reference to Harrison and Cleveland:

"The Republican party has placed Benjamin Harrison in nomination for re-election as President of the United States. He is in sympathy with all the great measures of the Republican party. He fought as a soldier in the ranks. His sympathies are all with his comrades and the cause for which they fought.

"He has proven his fitness for his high office by remarkable ability in the discharge of all its duties. He heartily supports the principles, past and present, of his party. He has met and solved every question, and performed every duty of his office. His administration has been firm, without fear and without reproach. I do not wish to derogate in the slightest degree from the merits of Mr. Cleveland. His highest merit is that he has checked, in some respects, the evil tendencies of his party; but he was not in active sympathy with the cause of the Union in the hour of its peril, or with the men who fought its battles. He is opposed to the protection of American industries. He supports, in the main, the doctrines and tendencies of the Democratic party.

"We believe that the honor, safety, and prosperity of our country can be best promoted by the election of a Republican President and Vice President, and a Republican Congress, and, therefore, I appeal to you to give to Benjamin Harrison and Whitelaw Reid, his worthy associate, and to your candidates for Congress, your hearty and disinterested support."

It was at this meeting that for the first time I encountered the kodak. The next morning the "Press," of Philadelphia, illustrated its report of the speech with several "snap shots" presenting me in various attitudes in different parts of the speech. I thought this one of the most remarkable inventions of this inventive age, and do not yet understand how the pictures were made. The comments of the daily papers in Philadelphia were very flattering, and perhaps I may be excused for inserting a single paragraph from a long editorial in the "Press" of the next day, in respect to it:

"His speech is a calm, luminous and dispassionate discussion of the business questions of the canvass. It is pre-eminently an educational speech which any man can hear or read with pride. Senator Sherman excels in the faculty of lucid and logical statement. His personal participation in all our fiscal legislation gives him an unequaled knowledge both of principles and details, and he is remarkably successful in making them clear to the simplest intelligence. The contrast between his candid, sober and weighty treatment of questions, and the froth and fustian which supply the lack of knowledge with epithets of 'fraud' and 'robbery' and 'cheat,' is refreshing."

On Monday evening, the 11th of October, I spoke in Cooper Union in the city of New York. It was an experiment to hold a political meeting on the eve of a day devoted to Columbian celebrations and a night to magnificent fireworks, but the great auditorium was filled, and among the gathering was a large number of bankers and business men interested in financial topics. I was introduced to the audience in a very complimentary manner by Mr. Blanchard, president of the Republican club, and was received with hearty applause by the audience. I said:

"Ladies and gentlemen, I congratulate the Republicans of the State of New York that at last we have brought the Democratic party to a fair and distinct issue on questions involved in the presidential campaign. Now for more than thirty years that party has been merely an opposition party, opposed to everything that we proposed, and having no principles or propositions of their own to present. They declared the war a failure; they were opposed to the homestead law, they were opposed to the greenback; they were opposed to everything that we did, but now, thank God, they have agreed to have one or two or three issues to be determined by the people."

I then stated the issues involved in the canvass in very much the same terms as in Philadelphia, but the speech in New York was made without notes and was literally reported in the "Tribune," while the Philadelphia speech was prepared and followed as closely as possible, without reference to manuscript. I have now read the two speeches carefully, and while the subject-matter is the same in both, the language, form and connection are as different as if delivered by two distinct persons who had not conferred with each other. My long experience convinces me that while it is safe for a person to write what he intends to say, yet it is better to carefully study the subject and then to speak without reference to notes or manuscript. This depends, however, upon the temperament and poise of the speaker. Nothing is more discouraging to an audience than to hear a speech read, except it be the attempt to speak offhand by a person who has not acquired a full knowledge of the subject-matter and does not possess the art of recalling and arranging the method of his address.

I believe my speech in New York covered all the issues involved in the canvass fairly and fully stated. I arraigned the Democratic party, especially for its declaration in 1864 that the war was a failure, when Grant was holding on with his deadly grip, and when Sherman and Sheridan were riding to battle and to victory. This declaration was more injurious to the Union cause than any victory by the Confederates during the war. I closed with the following reference to the respective candidates:

"The Republican party has nominated for President, Benjamin Harrison. When a lawyer in full practice, the sound of the enemy's guns came to his ears, the call of Lincoln filled his heart, and he entered the army. He fought through the war, a brave and gallant soldier. He returned again to his profession and to his wife and child, living in a quiet suburb of Indianapolis. He gradually became recognized as an able lawyer, and was finally sent to the Senate. For six years he sat by my side. I know him as well as I know any man. He is without stain or blemish. He is a man of marked ability, an able debater. He has grown greatly since he has been President of the United States. His speeches are models of propriety and eloquence. In every act of his life while President he had come up to the full standard and measure of that great office. If there was a controversy with foreign powers, the strongest in the world or the weakest, he was fair and just, but firm and manly.

"His worthy associate is Whitelaw Reid, of your city. He has been placed on the ticket by the side of Harrison. He is an honorable man. I knew him when he was a young reporter, making his living as best he could, and helping his father and mother. He has shown himself worthy the honor conferred upon him by the Republican party.

"Now, I have nothing to say against Mr. Cleveland. I am not here to belittle any man. I have sometimes thought he is better than his party, because he has stood up firmly on occasion in resistance of some of their extreme demands; but there is this to be said of him, that he was a man full grown at the opening of the war, an able-bodied man when the war was on. I have never known, nor has it ever been proved, that he had any heart for or sympathies with the Union solider or the Union cause.

"I know Harrison, from the top of his head to the bottom of his feet, was in that cause. I do not see how any patriotic man, who was on the side of his country in the war, can hesitate to choose Harrison rather than Cleveland."

I returned from New York to Cincinnati, where I had agreed to speak in Turner Hall on the 14th of October. This hall had long been a place for public meetings. It is situated in the midst of a German population and is their usual place for rendezvous. They had recently greatly improved and enlarged it, and wished me to speak in it as I had frequently spoken in the old hall. It was well filled by an intelligent audience, nearly all of whom were of German birth or descent. They were, as a rule, Republicans, but they were restive under any legislation that interfered with their habits. They drank their beer, but rarely consumed spirituous liquors, and considered this as temperance. With their wives and children, when the weather was favorable, they gathered in open gardens and listened to music, in which many of them were proficient. Such was my audience in Turner Hall. I spoke to them on the same topics I did to purely American audiences, and to none who had a better comprehension and appreciation of good money of uniform value, whether of gold, silver or paper.

From Cincinnati I went to Chicago. I had been invited by Jesse Spaulding, a leading business man of that city, to make an address at Central Music Hall on the evening of the 22nd of October. As I was to attend the dedication, on that day, of the Ohio building in the grounds of the World's Columbian Exposition, I accepted the invitation of Mr. Spaulding. I regarded it as a bold movement on the part of business men to call such a meeting in the midst of the excitement and hurry of the dedication of the great buildings of the World's Fair. Still, that was their business and not mine. I carefully outlined the points I wished to make, something like a lawyer's brief, and had the order of topics clearly arranged and engraved on my mind. I determined to use no word that would not be understood by every man who heard me, and to avoid technical phrases.

When the hour appointed arrived I was escorted to the place assigned me, and faced an audience that filled the hall, composed of men of marked intelligence who could and would detect any fault of logic or fact. The speech was fairly reported in the Chicago papers, and was kindly treated in their editorial columns. After a brief reference to the Exposition buildings and the great crowd that had witnessed their dedication, and the wonderful growth of Chicago, I said:

"You will be called upon in a short time to elect a President of the United States who will be armed with all the executive authority of this great government, and also a Congress which will have the delegated power, for two years, to make laws for the people of the United States.

"Now, there is a contest in this country, not between small parties, but between great parties. I take it that in this intelligent audience it is not necessary for me to discuss the temperance party or the farmers' party. The best temperance party is the individual conscience of each citizen and inhabitant of the United States. As for the farmers' party, the Republican party has been the farmers' party as well as the people's party since the beginning of its organization in 1856. The controversy is between the two, the Democratic and Republican parties, as they have named themselves.

"The Democratic party has a very popular name. It means a government through the people. But the Republican party has a still more popular name. It is a government by the representatives of the people, and that name expresses more distinctly the true nature of our government than the name Democratic, but the Democratic party has forfeited for more than thirty years the very name of the Democratic party, and ought now to be christened the Confederate Democracy of America."

The "Tribune" and "Inter-Ocean" had friendly editorial articles about the meeting, and the "Tribune" especially, which in times past was very far from being partial to me, expressed this opinion of the meeting and speech:

"It was a test of the capacity of Chicago for great popular gatherings, and a demonstration of its interest in political affairs, that, after a week of civic celebration, upon a scale more colossal than this country has ever witnessed before and calling for a maximum of effort and endurance, Central Music Hall was crowded from gallery to parquet, Saturday night, with thousands of business men and others who are interested in the great issues of the political campaign, to listen to the address of the Hon. John Sherman, of Ohio. It was something more than an exposition of Chicago's vital interest in these issues. It was a personal compliment and a rare expression of the popular confidence in the veteran Senator, this immense and enthusiastic gathering of substantial citizens after the absorbing and exacting duties of the week. It testifies eloquently to the enthusiasm and determination of Chicago Republicans in the pending campaign.

"It is no derogation of Senator Sherman's abilities to say one does not look to him for the eloquent periods of the orator that carry away audiences on waves of enthusiasm. His strength lies in his convincing statement, his cogency of argument, his array of facts, and his powerful logic. No man in the United States, perhaps, is better qualified to speak upon the issues of this campaign than Senator Sherman. He appeals to the thought and reason of his hearers, and he never appeals in vain, and rarely has he made a stronger appeal than in his Music Hall speech. The three issues discussed by him were wildcat currency, the silver question, and the protective tariff question. His discussion of the wildcat currency was exhaustive, and he pictured the evils that must flow from its resumption in forcible and convincing terms."

On the 25th of October, Senator W. P. Frye, of Maine, and I spoke at Schlitz's amphitheater in Milwaukee. The notice had been brief, but the attendance was large. The audience was composed chiefly of German Republicans. Frye and I had divided the topics between us. He spoke on the tariff and I on good money. On the latter subject the people before us were united for a sound currency, all as good as gold and plenty of it. I made my speech first, but Frye made a better one on the tariff, upon which they were somewhat divided. Such a division of opinion is an advantage to the speaker, and Frye availed himself of it by making an excellent and interesting address. The speeches were well reported the next morning, an evidence of enterprise I did not expect.

After my return from Milwaukee to Ohio I made several speeches prior to the election. While the Republican meetings were large, I could not overlook the fact that the Democratic meetings were also large, that the personality of Cleveland, and his autocratic command of his party, kept it in line, while his firm adherence to sound financial principles, in spite of the tendency of his party to free coinage and irredeemable money, commanded the respect of business men, and secured him the "silent vote" of thousands of Republicans.

In Ohio the Republican party barely escaped defeat, the head of the ticket, Samuel M. Taylor, the candidate for secretary of state, receiving but 1,089 plurality. The national ticket did not fare quite so well, receiving but 1,072 plurality, and, for the first time since the election of Franklin Pierce in 1852, Ohio cast one Democratic electoral vote, the remaining twenty-two being Republican. Cleveland and Stevenson received 277 electoral votes, and Harrison and Reid 145.

Harrison did not receive the electoral vote of any one of the southern states that were mainly responsible for his nomination, nor any one of the doubtful states in the north that contributed to his result, including Indiana, where he resided, and which went Democratic by a plurality of 7,125.

As a rule the states that voted in the convention for Blaine and McKinley gave Harrison their electoral vote. The Democrats elected 220 Members of the House of Representatives, the Republicans 126 and the People's party 8.

The result was so decisive that no question could be made of the election of Cleveland. The causes that contributed to it might have defeated any Republican. It is not worth while to state them, for a ready acquiescence in the result of an election by the American people is the conservative element of our form of government that distinguishes it from other republics of ancient or modern times.

CHAPTER LXIII. ATTEMPTS TO STOP THE PURCHASE OF SILVER BULLION. My Determination to Press the Repeal of the Silver Purchasing Clause of the "Sherman Act"—Reply to Criticisms of the Philadelphia "Ledger"—Announcement of the Death of Ex-President Hayes—Tribute to His Memory—Efforts to Secure Authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to Sell Bonds to Maintain the Resumption of United States Notes—The Senate Finally Recedes from the Amendment in Order to Save the Appropriation Bill—Loss of Millions of Dollars to the Government—Cleveland Again Inducted Into Office—His Inaugural Address—Efforts to Secure an Appropriation for the "World's Fair" —Chicago Raises $1,000,000—Congress Finally Decides to Pay the Exposition $2,500,000 in Silver Coin—I Attend the Dedication of the Ohio Building at the Fair—Address to the Officers and Crew of the Spanish Caravels.

Soon after the election, and before the meeting of Congress, I announced my purpose to press the repeal, not of the entire law misnamed the "Sherman act," but of the clause of that act that required the purchase by the United States of 4,500,000 ounces of silver bullion each month. I had, on July 14, 1892, introduced a bill for that purpose which was referred to the committee on finance. I feared to press it pending the presidential election, lest the agitation of the subject at that time should lead to the adoption of free coinage. During the short session of that Congress, which met on the 5th of December, I did not think it wise to urge this bill though strongly pressed to do so. A majority of the Senate were in favor of free coinage, and I was not sure but the House, disorganized by the recent election, might not concur, and the President either approve it or permit it to become a law without his signature. When criticised for my delay by the "Ledger" of Philadelphia, I replied, on the 14th of January, 1893, as follows:

"It is as well known as anything can be that a large majority of the Republican Senators, including myself, are decidedly in favor of the repeal or suspension of the purchase of silver bullion. They are ready to-day, to-morrow, or at any moment, to vote for such repeal. It is equally well known that not more than one-fourth or one-fifth of the Democratic Senators are in favor of such repeal, and they will resort to extreme measures to prevent it. They are openly pronounced for the free coinage of silver or the continuation of the existing law. The pretense made that Republican Senators would sacrifice the public interests for a mere political scheme is without foundation, and I feel like denouncing it. If the Democratic party will furnish a contingent of ten Senators in support of the repeal of the silver act of 1890, it will pass the Senate within ten days. The Democratic party as now represented in the Senate is, and has been, for the free coinage of silver. I hope the eastern Democracy and Mr. Cleveland may have some influence in changing their opinions."

Subsequent events proved the wisdom of this delay.

On January 17, 1893, I reported from the committee on finance the bill referred to. On the 3rd of February the question of the repeal of this silver purchasing clause was incidentally brought to the attention of the Senate by Mr. Teller, who announced that it was not among the possibilities that it would be repealed at that session. I took this occasion to explain that the reason why I had not previously moved to take this bill up was that I was not satisfied there was a majority in favor of its passage. The question why it was not taken up had been frequently discussed in the newspapers, but I did not consider it my duty to make such a motion when it would merely lead to debate and thus consume valuable time, though any other Senator was at liberty to make the motion if he chose to do so. A motion to take it up was subsequently made by Senator Hill and defeated by a vote of yeas 23, nays 42.

No action was taken on the bill, and I only mention it in view of subsequent events.

Immediately after the Senate convened on the 18th of January, 1893, I arose and announced the death of ex-President Hayes in the following terms:

"It becomes my painful duty to announce to the Senate the death of Rutherford Birchard Hayes, at his residence in Fremont, Ohio, last evening at eleven o'clock. By the usage of the Senate, when one who has been President of the United States dies during the session of the Senate, it has been, as a mark of respect to his memory, recorded his death upon its journal and suspended its duties for the day.

"President Hayes held high and important positions during his life, having been a gallant and distinguished Union soldier during the war, a Member of Congress, three times Governor of the State of Ohio, and President of the United States. He was a man of marked ability, untarnished honor, unblemished character, and faithful in the discharge of all his duties in every relation of life, against whom no word of reproach can be truthfully uttered.

"It was my good fortune to know President Hayes intimately from the time we were law students until his death. To me his death is a deep personal grief. All who had the benefit of personal association with him were strengthened in their attachment to him and in their appreciation of his generous qualities of head and heart. His personal kindness and sincere, enduring attachment for his friends, was greater than he displayed in public intercourse. He was always modest, always courteous, kind to everyone who approached him, and generous to friend or foe. He had no sympathy with hatred or malice. He gave every man his due according to his judgment of his merits.

"I, therefore, as is usual on such occasions, move that the Senate, out of respect to the memory of President Hayes, do now adjourn."

In this formal announcement of the death of ex-President Hayes, I followed the usual language, but it did not convey my high appreciation of his abilities, nor my affectionate regard for him. This I have done in previous pages. His life was stainless; his services in the army and in civil life were of the highest value to his state and country; he was an affectionate husband, father and friend, and, in all the relations of life, was a honorable man and a patriotic citizen.

On February 17, I offered an amendment to the sundry civil appropriation bill authorizing the Secretary of the Treasury, at his discretion, to sell three per cent. bonds, redeemable in five years from date, to enable him to provide for and maintain the redemption of United States notes, according to the provisions of the resumption act of January 14, 1875, to the extent necessary to carry that act into full effect. I stated in explanation of this provision that its object was to enable the Secretary of the Treasury, in case an emergency should arise making a sale of bonds necessary, to issue a three per cent. bond redeemable at the pleasure of the United States after five years instead of a four per cent. bond running thirty years, or a four and a half per cent. bond running fifteen years, or a five per cent. bond running ten years, which were the only bonds he could sell under existing law.

After a long debate the amendment was agreed to by the vote of 30 yeas and 16 nays. It was not agreed to by the House and the question presented was whether the Senate would recede from the amendment. I regarded this provision as of vital importance, and urged the Senate to insist upon the amendment, not only as an act of wise public policy, but as one of justice to the incoming administration. In discussing this proposition, on the 1st of March, I said:

"This conference report presents for our consideration again a question of the importance, necessity, and propriety of the amendment known as the bond amendment which I had the honor to offer, and which had the sanction of the committee on finance of this body and of a very large majority of the Senate; but for want of time and the multitude of amendments pending there has been no vote in the House of Representatives which enables us to know what is the real opinion of that body on the subject. I can say no more on that point except to express the confident belief that if the vote had been taken the House would have concurred in the amendment.

"I think it is due to us and due to the committee of which I am a member that the exact history of that amendment shall be stated, and then the Senate may act upon it as it sees proper."

I then quoted the amendment as follows:

"To enable the Secretary of the Treasury to provide for and to maintain the redemption of United States notes according to the provisions of the act approved January 14, 1875, entitled 'An act to provide for the resumption of specie payments,' and, at the discretion of the secretary, he is authorized to issue, sell, and dispose of, at not less than par in coin, either of the description of bonds authorized in said act, or bonds of the United States bearing not to exceed three per cent. interest, payable semi-annually and redeemable at the pleasure of the United States after five years from their date, with like qualities, privileges, and exemptions provided in said act for the bonds therein authorized, to the extent necessary to carry said resumption act into full effect, and to use the proceeds thereof for the purposes provided in said act and none other."

Continuing, I said that the resumption act referred to in the amendment contained an important stipulation, the clause of the resumption act which enabled the secretary to maintain specie payments, and which is as follows:

"To enable the Secretary of the Treasury to prepare and provide for the redemption in this act authorized or required, he is authorized to use any surplus revenues, from time to time, in the treasury, not otherwise appropriated, and to issue, sell, and dispose of, at not less than par, in coin, either of the descriptions of bonds of the United States described in the act of Congress approved July 14, 1870, entitled 'An act to authorize the refunding of the national debt,' with like qualities, privileges, and exemptions, to the extent necessary to carry this act into full effect, and to use the proceeds thereof for the purposes aforesaid."

I then had read to the Senate the character and description of bonds authorized to be issued under what is called the refunding act, referred to in the resumption act, as follows:

"That the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby authorized to issue, in a sum or sums not exceeding in the aggregate $200,000,000, coupon or registered bonds of the United States, in such form as he may prescribe, and of denominations of $50, or some multiple of that sum, redeemable in coin of the present standard value, at the pleasure of the United States, after ten years from the date of their issue, and bearing interest, payable semi-annually in such coin, at the rate of five per cent. per annum; also, a sum or sums not exceeding in the aggregate $300,000,000 of like bonds, the same in all respects, but payable, at the pleasure of the United States, after fifteen years from the date of their issue, and bearing interest at the rate of four and a half per cent. per annum; also, a sum or sums not exceeding in the aggregate $1,000,000,000 of like bonds, the same in all respects, but payable, at the pleasure of the United States, after thirty years from the date of their issue, and bearing interest at the rate of four per cent. per annum."

Resuming my argument, I said:

"It is apparent from these laws, which are fundamental in their character, that the secretary has imposed upon him not merely the privilege but the duty of maintaining or providing for the resumption of specie payments and the maintenance of the specie standard in gold and silver coin. He is also authorized by a subsequent act, which I do not care to have read because it is not necessary, to maintain $100,000,000 in gold in the nature of a redemption fund, or rather that was the minimum limit provided in the law. In order to perform this grave duty the Secretary of the Treasury was authorized, at his discretion, whenever necessary to obtain the coin required, to issue a bond bearing four per cent. interest running for thirty years, or a bond bearing four and a half per cent. interest running fifteen years, or a bond bearing five per cent. interest running ten years.

"It has been feared—I do not say that there has been occasion for this fear—that the Secretary of the Treasury cannot maintain the necessary resumption fund; that he may have to resort to the credit of the government, upon which all the greenback issues of the United States notes and bonds are founded; that he might have to resort to the sale of bonds to obtain money, in order to maintain the parity of the different forms of money in this country and the redemption or payment in coin, when demanded, of the obligations of the United States, especially the United States notes, commonly called greenbacks.

"When I came, in examining this question, to see whether or not the law enacted in 1875 was applicable to the condition of affairs in 1893, it was apparent to me, as it must have been to every man, however ignorant he might be of the principles of finance, that the conditions of our country were such that we would not be justified, by public opinion or by the interests of our people, to sell a bond bearing four or four and a half or five per cent. interest.

"Therefore, it was manifest to me, as it would be manifest to anyone who would look at the question without any feeling about it at all, that if we could borrow money at three per cent. on bonds running for five years or for a short period of time, always reserving our right to redeem these bonds within a short period, it would save a vast sum to the people of the United States, at least one-fourth of the interest on the bonds, and we would save more by the right to redeem them if a favorable turn in the market should enable us to do so.

"I feel that it is a matter of public duty which I am bound to perform, as being connected with the refunding laws and the resumption act, that I should endeavor to make suitable provision for the next Secretary of the Treasury. I knew this law could not take effect until about the time the present secretary would go out, when the new secretary would come in. Therefore, I drew this amendment as it now stands, and it was submitted to the incoming Secretary of the Treasury. He having been formerly a member of the committee on finance and a Member of the Senate, and being familiar with us all, came before the committee on finance and there stated the reasons why, in his judgment, it might become, in case of exigency, important for him to have the power to issue a cheaper bond.

"He expressed the hope and belief, and I am inclined to agree with him, that it might not be necessary to issue these bonds at all, but that when the emergency came he must meet it as quickly as a stroke of lightning; there must be no hesitation or delay; if there should be a disparity between the two metals, or a run upon the government for the payment of the United States notes, he must be prepared to meet this responsibility in order to obtain coin with which to redeem the notes. That statement was submitted to the committee on finance in the presence of the honorable gentleman who is to hold the high and distinguished office of Secretary of the Treasury."

I proceeded at considerable length to state the difficulties the treasury must meet in consequence of the large increase of treasury notes issued for the purchase of silver bullion. The Senate fully appreciated the importance of the amendment, but in the hurry of the closing days of the session it was said that to attempt to reach a vote upon it in the House of Representatives would endanger the passage of the appropriation bill, and therefore the Senate receded from the amendment. It is easy now to see that its defeat greatly embarrassed the new administration and caused the loss of many millions by the sale of long term bonds at a higher rate of interest than three per cent.

On the 4th of March, 1893, Grover Cleveland was sworn into office as President of the United States, and delivered his inaugural address. It was a moderate and conservative document, dealing chiefly with axioms readily assented to. Its strongest passages were in favor of a sound and stable currency. He said that the danger of depreciation in the purchasing power of the wages paid to toil should furnish the strongest incentive to prompt and conservative precaution. He declared that the people had decreed that there should be a reform in the tariff, and had placed the control of their government, in its legislative and executive branches, with a political party pledged in the most positive terms to the accomplishment of such a reform, but in defining the nature or principles to be adopted he was so vague and indefinite that either a free trader or a protectionist might agree with him. He said:

"The oath I now take to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States, not only impressively defines the great responsibility I assume, but suggests obedience to constitutional commands as a rule by which my official conduct must be guided. I shall, to the best of my ability, and within my sphere of duty, preserve the constitution by loyally protecting every grant of federal power it contains, by defending all its restraints when attacked by impatience and resentment, and by enforcing its limitations and restrictions in favor of the states and the people."

This was a promise broad enough to cover the McKinley bill or the Wilson bill. I do not criticise the address, for an inaugural should contain nothing but thanks and patriotism.

The chief interest at this period centered in the World's Fair at Chicago, to celebrate the quadro-centennial of the discovery of America by Columbus. Such a celebration was first proposed as early as 1887, to be in the nature of an intellectual or scientific exposition that would exhibit the progress of our growth, and to take place at Washington, the political capital, under the charge of the national authorities. As the matter was discussed the opinion prevailed that the exposition should be an industrial one, and the choice of location lay between Chicago, New York and St. Louis. I was decidedly in favor of Chicago as the typical American city which sprang from a military post in 1837, survived the most destructive fire in history, and had become the second city of the continent, and, more than any other, represented the life, vigor and industry of the American people. The contention about the site delayed the exposition one year, so that the discovery of 1492 was not celebrated in 1892, but in the year following. This was the first enterprise undertaken by Chicago in which it was "behind time," but it was not the fault of that city, but of Congress, which delayed too long the selection of the site. I was a member of a select committee on the quadro-centennial appointed in January, 1890, composed of fifteen Members of the Senate. On the 21st of April, 1890, a bill was pending in the Senate appropriating $1,500,000 from the treasury of the United States to pay the expense of representing the government of the United States in an exposition in Chicago, in 1893. I made a speech in defense of the appropriation and stated the benefits of such an exposition as shown by the one in London and two in Paris that I had attended. While the receipts at the gates for attendance did not in either case cover the expense, yet the benefits derived greatly exceeded all expenses and left great buildings of permanent value, such as the Crystal Palace at Sydenham, and still more valuable buildings at Paris. I referred to the centennial exposition at Philadelphia in 1876, and to the innumerable state, county and city fairs in all parts of the United States, all of which were of great value to the places where held. These gatherings had revolutionized the social habits and greatly improved the manners and intelligence of our people, and are likely to increase in number in the future. The bill passed, but not without serious opposition, and upon terms extremely onerous to Chicago.

This course of opposition continued until August, 1892. The people of Chicago had raised the enormous sum of $11,000,000 without the certainty of any return. All nations had been invited, and were preparing to be represented at this exposition. The attention of mankind was excited by the enterprise of a city only fifty years old, of more than a million inhabitants, erecting more and greater buildings than had ever been constructed for such a purpose. The United States had not contributed to the general expense, but had appropriated a sum sufficient to provide for its own buildings in its own way, precisely on the footing of foreign powers. It became necessary to borrow more money, and Congress was requested to loan the exposition the sum of $5,000,000, to be refunded out of receipts, in the same proportion as to other stockholders. This was declined, but it was enacted that the United States would coin $2,500,000 in silver, and pay the exposition that coin. Whether this was done because silver bullion could be purchased for about $1,500,000 sufficient to coin $2,500,000, or to make a discrimination against the fair, I do not know. On the 5th of August, 1892, I expressed my opposition to this measure. Both Houses were remaining in session to settle the matter, and the President was delayed in Washington, when, by reason of domestic affliction, he ought to have been elsewhere. I said: "Under the circumstances, I do not see anything better to be done than to allow the bill to pass. If I was called upon on yea and nay vote I should vote against it."

On the 22nd of October, 1892, I attended the dedication of the building erected by the State of Ohio, on the exposition grounds. The structure, though not entirely completed, was formally dedicated, and the keys were duly delivered to Governor McKinley. On receiving the keys he made a very appropriate address. I was called for by the crowd, and was introduced by Major Peabody, president of the State Board of Managers. I do not recall the words of my speech, nor was it, or the various speeches made on this occasion, reported; but I no doubt said that the United States was the greatest power on earth, and Ohio was its garden spot. I made a political speech that evening at Central Music Hall, as previously stated.

Among the objects of the greatest interest at the exposition were three Spanish caravels, the exact counterparts of the Santa Maria, the Nina and the Pinta, the vessels with which Columbus made his memorable voyage of discovery. These reproductions were made by Spaniards at the place from which the original vessels sailed, and, manned by Spanish sailors, followed the same course pursued by Columbus to the islands he discovered and from thence sailed to the mouth of the St. Lawrence, and following up that stream passed through Lake Ontario, the Welland Canal, Lakes Erie, Huron and Michigan, to Chicago, more than 1,000 miles from the Atlantic Ocean. I had been invited by the managers of the exposition to deliver an address of welcome to the officers and sailors of these vessels, on their arrival at Chicago on the 7th of July, 1893. They were received by the managers and a great crowd, and conducted to a stand in the park of the exposition, where I made my address, too long to insert here, but I quote a few paragraphs:

"Mr. President, Captain Concas and the Officers and Mariners Under His Command:—You have before you men and women of all races and climes. They have met to share in this great exposition of the industries of all nations. To-day they celebrate the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus and the arrival here of the marine fleet under your command, manned by the countrymen of those who made the discovery of the new world.

* * * * *

"We have before us the reproduction of the Santa Maria, the Pinta and the Nina, the three vessels that made this memorable voyage. They are sent to us by the same chivalrous and gallant people who built the original craft and manned and sailed them under the command of Columbus. They are striking object lessons that speak more eloquently than voice or words. We welcome them to this exposition of the industries of the world. Here, on the waters of this inland sea, 1,000 miles from the ocean traversed by Columbus, in this city, the most marvelous result of the industry and energy of mankind, we place this mimic fleet side by side with the monsters that have come from the inventive genius of the American people, not to extol our handiwork, but to extol the men who, four hundred years ago, with such feeble means and resources, opened the way to all the achievements of succeeding generations. You can look at them where they quietly rest upon the waters of the great northwest. In such as these one hundred and twenty men sailed on an unknown ocean, they knew not where. They lived where for two thousand years the pillars of Hercules had marked the end of the world. They had been taught to believe in the four corners of the earth, and that all beyond was a boundless waste of waters, into which no one had ventured beyond the Canary Islands and the coast of Africa.

* * * * *

"We welcome all the peoples of the earth, with their varied productions, to the full and free enjoyment of their habits at home, and in return exhibit to them the results of our growth and industry. In no boastful spirit this new and marvelous city, which has sprung into existence within the life of men who hear me, has, with the aid of the general government and the states that comprise it, built these great palaces, adorned these lately waste places and brought into them the wonderful facilities of transportation invented in modern times. Welcome all, but on this day we doubly welcome these mementoes of the voyage of Columbus to this western world.